> It can now convert and start the test suite, however, this doesn't
> produce any results, yet.
Following up to myself: it now does run the test suite to completion:
Ran 1425 tests in 384.689s
FAILED (failures=222, errors=539)
If you are curious what the failures and errors are, just run it
I have now published my 3.x port on bitbucket, at
http://bitbucket.org/loewis/django-3k/
It can now convert and start the test suite, however, this doesn't
produce any results, yet.
Feel free to use the bitbucket issue tracker to report problems or
contribute changes.
Regards,
Martin
--
You
> Some examples:
Thanks for posting them:
> >>> Template(u"{{ foo }}").render(Context({"foo":"bar"}))
> u'bar'
I get
py> Template("{{ foo }}").render(Context({b"foo":b"bar"}))
''
I think that's correct: the dictionary has no key "foo".
I'm also unsure what this has to do with UTF-8: isn't
> > In many cases, this is true, but there are other scenarios (certain
> > forms of exception handling, for example) where there is no syntax
> > that's valid in both versions. That's syntax, not just libraries and
> > functions. There's no way to even get a file to parse in both Python 2
> > and
> I'll give it a go, but for someone who doesn't know about running 2to3
> etc, to make things a but more obvious can you add to your page a
> quick set of instructions as to what someone needs to do to try this
> out. Ie., what needs to be done after a checkout, does one apply patch
> and then
> Have you by chance tried running it on top of Apache/mod_wsgi (version
> from subversion which has Python 3.0 support)?
No, only in runserver mode.
Regards,
Martin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> Did you by any chance try running the Django test suite(because that's
> probably going to be the best way to spot breakages).
No, I haven't (or only to the degree to find out that runtest.py is
not in 3.0
syntax, as it uses incorrect except clauses). I'm fairly certain
though
that the test
I have updated my Py3k port of django. As before, it is just the bare
minimum to get through the tutorial; as the possibly most significant
change since the previous patch, it now supports psycopg2.
I have updated the Wiki page at http://wiki.python.org/moin/PortingDjangoTo3k
with the new patch.
> I think you misunderstand the role of 2.6. See the seven steps under
> "The recommended development model for a project that needs to support
> Python 2.6 and 3.0 simultaneously..." in
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/#compatibility-and-transition.
> Step 1 reads "Port your
> So this means, though, that folks running from SVN will still need to
> run setup.py every time they update, right? Not that that's a
> dealbreaker -- I think Django-on-Py3k'ers will be on the cutting edge
> anyway -- just wanna check.
Correct. distutils operates using time-stamps, so it
> The specific issues I've run into so far:
>
> * Exception-catching syntax (i.e. ``except Whatever as e`` vs.
> ``except Whatever, e``).
2to3 fixes these, and transparently transforms "the except clauses.
> * Unicode literals (u'...').
Likewise, 2to3 removes the u"" prefix.
So leave the
> > You can (probably) support Python 2.x and Python 3.x out of a single
> > source tree.
>
> From what I've read, this is true as long as the X after 2 is >= 6.
> That's a problem with Django's stated intent to support Python 2.3 on
> Django's release 1.0.
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong
> I hope you won't take it the wrong way when I say I have an extremely
> difficult time believing that.
No hurt feelings, no. However, I would find it useful if you could
add specific reservations and doubts to that. What aspects of Django
(that I perhaps haven't touch yet) do you consider
> Except if Django has a Python 3.0 version, say, this fall, that means
> how many years of supporting two parallel versions of Django and
> merging features and fixes back and forth between them?
Please see my recent report: 0 years, 0 months, 0 days, 0 seconds.
You can (probably) support
> I'm still a bit worried about the fact that, aside from Django being a
> moving target and Python 3.0 being a moving target, WSGI for Python
> 3.0 is *also* a moving target; there still seems to be a fair bit that
> hasn't been settled on how things ought to work.
That is the reason why I
> I wasn't at PyCon, and haven't done any 3.0 porting work myself, so I
> could be behind the times, but my understanding of current porting
> advice (based on PEP 3000) was that it's not going to be possible to
> support 2.x and 3.x from a single codebase in many cases (even with
> 2to3) if
> Some of the things you've identified as "Django should..." are a little
> problematic since one of the current requirements (at least for 1.0) is
> "Django should work out of the box with Python 2.3". Some of your
> proposed changes don't even work with Python 2.5, so we need to add a
> few
At the PyCon sprint, I started porting Django to Python 3.0. In the
process, I had to make a number of changes to Python, so this port
currently requires the Python 3.0 subversion head (soon to be released
as 3.0a4).
This port is just a start; it runs the tutorial with the sqlite3
backend,
18 matches
Mail list logo
